United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ground-Water Protection Washington, D.C, 20460 February 19B7 Water Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision Process Petition Review Guidance ------- SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS EPA PETITION REVIEW GUIDANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Background of the Sole Source Aquifer 2-1 Designation Decision Process 3. Overview of Petition Processing Procedures 3-1 4. Phase I - Pre-submission Activities 4-1 5. Phase II - Initial Petition Review/ 5-1 Completeness Determination 6. Phase III - Detailed Review/Technical 6-1 Verification 7. Phase IV - Designation Determination 7-1 EXHIBITS 3-1 Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision 3-2 Process 5-1 Completeness Determination Checklist 5-3 6-1 Areas Related to Sole Source Aquifers 6-2 6-2 Current Drinking Water Sources Matrix 6-5 6-3 Alternative Drinking Water Sources 6-7 Matrix APPENDICES A. Background Information Definitions A-l SDWA, Section 1424(e) SDWA Amendments, Section 1427 A-3 Designations to Date ..A-4 Pending Designations A-S Regional Contacts A-6 ------- B. Suggested Formats and Materials Petition Status Log B-l SSA Fact Sheet B-2 Acknowledgment of Receipt B-3 Acknowledgment of Completeness B-4 Notice of Deficiencies B-5 Petitioner Identifying Information Format B-6 C. Designation Package Contents Outline of Action Memorandum C-l Federal Register Notice C-2 Typesetting Request C-3 Responsiveness Summary C-4 Communications Plan C-5 Fact Sheet C-6 ------- 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Review Guidance This guidance should be used by all EPA staff involved in processing petitions for Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) designation. While it addresses the majority of questions likely to arise during petition processing, it cannot anticipate all questions related to the unique characteristics of each aquifer, petition and petitioner. Questions arising during petition processing that are not addressed in this manual should be directed to the SSA Designation Officer, Office of Ground-Water Protection, EPA Headquarters, (FTS) 382-7077. This guidance does not cover the post-designation project review process. The existing process should remain in effect until modified. 1.2 Content of this Review Guidance This guidance is divided into seven chapters. Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a background of the SSA designation decision process, including a brief legislative and regulatory history. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the SSA designation decision process which should be undertaken by the Regions. More detailed procedures for each of the four phases in the process are included in Chapters 4 through 7. The appendices, which are referenced throughout the guidance, provide background information, suggested formats and examples of past designation materials, all of which should be useful to the EPA reviewer responsible for processing SSA petitions. The terms and definitions used throughout this guidance and throughout the designation decision process are included in Appendix A-l. 1.3 Other Sources of Information The EPA staff responsible for reviewing petitions should be thoroughly familiar with the "SSA Designation Petitioner Guidance," which instructs interested parties in how to complete and submit an SSA petition. The reviewer also should be knowledgeable about the Agency's SSA Demonstration Program. In addition, the Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) will be issuing fact sheets, technical question and answer documents and other training materials for processing SSA petitions. 1-1 ------- 2. BACKGROUND OF THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS ------- 2. BACKGROUND OF THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS 2 .1 Legislative Background Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), (Appendix A-2), authorizes the EPA Administrator to determine that an aquifer is the "sole or principal" source of drinking water for an area. The Act also provides for EPA review of Federal financially-assisted projects planned for the area to determine their potential for contaminating the aquifer. Based on this review, no commitment of Federal financial assistance may be made for projects "which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer," although Federal funds may be used to modify projects to ensure that they will not contaminate the aquifer. Section 1427 of the SDWA, as amended in 1986, (Appendix A-3), establishes procedures for the development, implementation and assessment of demonstration programs designed to protect critical aquifer protection areas (CAPAs) within areas designated as sole or principal source aquifers under Section 1424(e). A CAPA is an area that; must be located within an area designated as a Sole Source Aquifer, by June 19, 1986, and has a Clean Water Act, Section 208, ground-water quality protection plan, approved prior to that same date; or must be located within an area that is designated as a Sole Source Aquifer no later than June 19, 1988, and that satisfies the CAPA criteria that EPA will establish by June 19, 1987, under Section 1427(d). 2.2 Regulatory Background Section 1424(e) of the SDWA includes only one procedural requirement, that the notice of the Administrator's determination be published in the Federal Register. In 1977, however, EPA published proposed regulations for all SSA designations (other than the Edwards Aquifer). Although EPA received comments on these proposed national regulations, they have never been promulgated in final form. 2-1 ------- 2,3 New National Designation Guidance In mid 1986, the Office of Ground-Water Protection established a work group to streamline the SSA designation decision process and to develop petitioner and EPA guidance for preparing and processing SSA petitions. The work group based the guidance on the 1977 proposed regulations and two drafts of revisions to these regulations, as well as on the Agency's 12 years of experience with the SSA program. This "EPA Petition Review Guidance" is one result of the work group's activities; the other is the "Petitioner Guidance." Upon issuance, this guidance should serve as the basis for reviewing petitions and making SSA designation determinations. 2.4 Relationship of SSAs to EPA's Ground-Water Classification System SSAs and the process to designate them should not be equated which Class I aquifers as defined in EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy or to the use of EPA's Ground-Water Classification Guidelines. Much greater analysis is needed for classification since, unlike SSA status. Class I will be a decision-making factor in EPA program regulations and guidances. 2.5 Designation Process Background 2.5.1 Responsibility for Designation From the passage of the SDWA in 1974 until September 1986, Headquarter's oversight of the SSA program was the responsibility of the Office of Drinking Water. Regional staff were responsible for petition review and coordination with the petitioners. The Regional Administrators (RAs) made recommendations to the EPA Administrator regarding designation, and the Administrator made the final determination. In late 1986, Headquarter's responsibility for oversight of the SSA program was transferred from the Office of Drinking Water to the Office of Ground-Water Protection. Current Regional SSA program contacts are listed in Appendix A-6. In addition, the Agency Administrator is expected to delegate the designation determination to the Regional Administrators in February 1987. In those cases involving a project review area located in more than one Region, even if the aquifer itself is located within one Region, the RA of the lead 2-2 ------- Region must obtain the concurrence of the other RA(s) and the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Water before making a final designation decision. 2.5.2 Designations to Date From 1974 to October 1986, EPA made 21 designations, listed in Appendix A-4. Another 21 were pending designation as of October 1986, as shown in Appendix A-5. 2-3 ------- 3. OVERVIEW OF PETITION PROCESSING PROCEDURES ------- 3. OVERVIEW OF PETITION PROCESSING PROCEDURES 3.1 Principles of the Designation Decision Process Several general principles underlie the SSA designation decision process: Timely processing of the petitions is essential, especially for those petitioners who intend to apply for SSA demonstration funds. Ideally, the entire process, from petition submission to designation, should take approximately six months; however, it may take longer, depending on the adequacy of the petition, the complexity of the aquifer and the sufficiency of Regional Office resources. This relatively short processing time does not mean that any of the steps outlined in this manual can be eliminated. It does mean that the EPA reviewer should remain aware of the targetted six-month period and conduct the review accordingly. The responsibility for developing a complete and acceptable petition rests with the petitioner. EPA staff may assist the petitioner by providing any readily available data concerning the aquifer that may be useful and by answering questions regarding petition completion and the designation process, EPA should not, however, fund or conduct studies or library reviews or actually prepare portions of the petition for the petitioner. EPA's responsibility is to receive, review and process petitions as expeditiously as possible, EPA should make a final designation decision on all completed petitions. Once EPA has determined that a petition is complete, the RA should issue either an approval or denial within a reasonable period of time, usually 30 days. Petitions cannot be placed on an inactive status without justification. 3.2 Overview of the Process The SSA petition review process consists of four phases, as shown on Exhibit 3-1. As this overview shows, EPA has established a target of approximately six months for completing petitions. Petition preparation 3-1 ------- EXHIBIT 3-1 SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS II. INITIAL REVIEW/ COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION IV. DESIGNATION DETERMINATION III. DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION L PRE-SUBMISSION ACTIVITIES TLCHMCAl U> to EPA REGION TIMERMME ^^ ^ ~v ^ V v JK~ NO ESTABLISHED 120 DAYS THE FRAME U DAT! ------- and response time are not included in this estimate; therefore, the entire process may take longer than six months depending on how quickly the petitioner responds to requests for additional information. Processing time also will vary according to the availability of EPA staff and the complexity of the petition and aquifer in question. As stated in Section 2.1, in order to be considered for SSA funding, a CAPA must be located within an SSA that is designated by June 1988. Given the minimum six-month processing time for SSA designation decisions, EPA has determined that any petitioner interested in eventually applying for SSA funds should submit the SSA petition by December l, 1987, Even for petitions submitted by this date, EPA cannot guarantee that designation decisions will be made by June 1988, since the processing time may vary widely among petitions. It is unlikely that EPA could make a designation decision before the June 1988 deadline for petitions submitted after December l, 1987, since the processing time will be insufficient. EPA's responsibility in each of the four processing phases is described in general in the following sections. A more detailed description of the activities to be carried out in each phase is included in Chapters 4 through 7 of this guidance manual. 3.2.1 General Procedures In order to track the status of each petition and to monitor the timeliness of the process, each Region should establish a Petition Status Log. Appendix B-l contains an example of this log. One page should be maintained for each petition received by the Region. The page also may serve as the cover sheet for the petition file. Each EPA Regional staff person who performs an activity for a particular petition is responsible for updating the log. The EPA reviewer should maintain complete and careful records throughout the process, taking special care to document the reasons for all decisions. This will be particularly important in those cases that result in denial of a petition. 3.2.2 Phase I - Pre-submission Activities The SSA designation decision process begins when a potential petitioner contacts the SSA Coordinator in the EPA Regional Office, expressing an interest in SSA 3-3 ------- designation. EPA Regional staff should describe the program and designation decision process to the potential petitioner. Upon request EPA should send each potential petitioner the "SSA Designation Petitioner Guidance," the fact sheet and any information that is readily available pertaining to the aquifer in question. The staff time spent locating and transmitting this information should be minimal¦ 3.2.3 Phase II - Initial Petition Review/Completeness Determination The second phase begins when the petitioner submits a petition to the EPA Regional Office. The objective of this phase is to determine whether the petition is complete, using the completeness checklist included in Chapter 5. A determination of completeness means that the petition is sufficiently complete to go on to the more rigorous technical verification phase. A determination of completeness at this early stage does not necessarily mean that EPA should not ask the petitioner to supply additional data at a later point; it also does not guarantee that designation is forthcoming. If the petition is determined to be incomplete, the EPA reviewer should return it to the petitioner, along with a written indication of the missing data. EPA has no further review responsibility in relation to an incomplete petition until the petitioner resubmits it. The opportunity for public comment also is announced during this phase. 3.2.4 Phase III - Detailed Review/Technical Verification The third phase of the designation decision process has two major objectives: To verify that the aquifer is the sole or principal source of drinking water for the defined aquifer service area, that is, that it is needed to supply 50% or more of the drinking water for the area and that the volume of water which could be supplied by alternative sources is insufficient to replace the petitioned aquifer To verify or modify, as applicable, the boundaries of the aquifer, its recharge area and the streamflow source area(s), if appropriate; this information is used to determine the boundaries of the designated area and the project review area. 3-4 ------- During the course of reviewing the petition, the EPA reviewer may determine that there is insufficient hydrogeological, drinking water use or other technical data to make the determinations regarding sole or principal source or the boundaries of the various areas. If this is the case, the reviewer should request additional technical data from the petitioner. In addition to conducting the technical review, the EPA reviewer is responsible for conducting a public hearing, if appropriate, reviewing written comments and incorporating public input from these sources into the designation consideration. This phase ends when the EPA reviewer submits his/her recommendation for petition approval or denial to the Regional Administrator in a Designation Package, which includes the petition. 3.2.5 Phase IV - Designation Determination The Regional Administrator should approve or deny the SSA petition, based on the information in the Designation Package and the designation criteria. The final designation decision is the only element of the process that requires publication in the Federal Register. The designation determination for project review areas that extend into more than one Region must have the concurrence of the RA(s) of the other affected Region(s) and the AA for Water. 3-5 ------- 4, PHASE I - PRE—SUBMISSION ACTIVITIES ------- 4,0 PHASE I - PRE—SUBMISSION ACTIVITIES 4.1 Purpose The purpose of this phase is for the Regional EPA staff to supply potential petitioners with information regarding the SSA program in general, the petition processing steps and, if readily available, the specific aquifer, This phase also serves as a "screening" process to assist potential petitioners in determining whether their petitions would be appropriate. For example, a community group may desire SSA designation to prevent siting of a landfill, not realizing that designation only allows for EPA review of Federal financially-assisted projects and that it excludes projects that are funded by State or local governments, purely private projects or programs carried out by the Federal government itself. As another example, a local interest group may want SSA designation in order to qualify for SSA demonstration funds, not understanding that only public entities with jurisdiction over the CAPA are eligible to apply for grant funding. The information provided to potential petitioners during this phase should be sufficient to ensure that the petitions are as complete as possible and adequate for a technical review the first time they are submitted. In general, contact with the petitioner during this phase should be by telephone and mail. 4.2 Qualified Petitioners Any person may petition to have an aquifer designated as an SSA, A person is any individual, corporation, company, association, partnership, State, municipality or Federal agency (and includes officers, employees and agents of any corporation, company, association, State, municipality or Federal agency). 4.3 Information to be Provided Regarding the SSA Program The "SSA Fact Sheet" (Appendix B-2) outlines the major points that EPA staff should cover when first describing the SSA program to a potential petitioner. The EPA staff person should offer to send the Fact Sheet to the petitioner and explain that the person may call again after reading the Fact Sheet. The Fact Sheet also may be used as a guide to answer potential petitioners' questions over the phone if there is sufficient time to do so. 4-1 ------- 4.4 Information to be Provided Regarding SSA Designation Petition Processing The "SSA Fact Sheet" contains information regarding the petition processing activities. In addition to the information included on the Fact Sheet, the potential petitioner should understand: The six-month time frame is the minimum; the process may take more time, depending on the adequacy of the information submitted by the petitioner, EPA workload, the complexity of the aquifer and petition and the nature of the public participation process. For those petitioners interested in SSA Demonstration Program consideration, a petition should be submitted by December 1, 1987; however, submission of a petition by December 1987 does not necessarily guarantee designation by June 1988. It is unlikely that petitions submitted past this date will be processed in time for the June 1988 deadline. EPA should review the petition and may supply the petitioner with readily available, pertinent information regarding the aquifer to be designated, but should not prepare the petition or conduct detailed technical analyses applicable to the petition. If the potential petitioner so chooses, EPA should send the petitioner the "Sole Source Aquifer Designation Petitioner Guidance" immediately. 4.5 Information Regarding Specific Aquifers In some cases, the EPA Regional Office may have hydrogeological studies, Clean Water Act, Section 208, plans or other materials on hand regarding specific aquifers. Upon request, when materials such as these are readily available, EPA Regional staff may send them to the potential petitioner. The staff time spent locating and transmitting this information should be minimal. If large amounts of data are available at EPA, the EPA reviewer should either send the materials to the library for the petitioner to check out, or the petitioner's request for information should be handled using Freedom of Information Act procedures. In either case, the EPA staff person should inform the petitioner how the material will be made available. 4-2 ------- EPA staff also should inform the petitioner of other sources of technical data. These sources include: Federal agencies, such as Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior United States Geological Survey Soil Conservation Service State department of natural resources State geological survey State natural or water resources agency State environmental agency State or local health department University extension service Local or regional planning agency Local water authority. 4.6 Completion of Phase I Once the petitioner has gathered all the pertinent available information from the sources described above, the petitioner is responsible for developing and submitting the petition. This phase ends when the EPA Regional Office receives the petition. 4-3 ------- 5. PHASE II - INITIAL PETITION REVIEW/ COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION ------- 5• PHASE II - INITIAL PETITION REVIEW/ COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION 5.1 Purpose The main purpose of Phase II is to determine if the petition is complete, i.e., that its contents are adequate to perform a more detailed, rigorous technical review in Phase III. This phase begins when the Regional Office receives a first-time or resubmitted petition from the petitioner. The announcement of the opportunity for public hearing and call for written comments also occur during this phase. The phase ends when EPA either returns the petition to the petitioner for additional information or notifies the petitioner that the petition is sufficiently complete to begin the detailed review in Phase III. 5.2 Acknowledgment of Petition Receipt EPA should receive four copies of the petition from the petitioner. Two of these should contain original maps or diagrams if copies of these would not reproduce all necessary colors. The copies should be used as follows: Original - To be held as the Region's official copy of the petition. Second original or Copy 1 - To be used for Regional review and comment. Copy 2 - To make additional copies for public comment or information. A Region also may want to make copies to send to the affected States(s) and other Regions, if appropriate. Copy 3 - For EPA Headquarters. Upon receipt of the petition, the EPA reviewer should: Log in the petition on the Status Log (Appendix B—1), with the name of the aquifer, the contact person and the receipt date Acknowledge receipt of the petition with a letter such as that shown in Appendix B-3. If the petition could lead to a project review area spanning more than one Region, the Region initially receiving the petition must send a copy of the petition to the other Region(s) involved. The affected Regions 5-1 ------- should then determine which one will act as lead Region for purposes of conducting the review and obtaining concurrences from each RA and the AA for Water. 5.3 Completeness Determination If several petitions require review, the EPA reviewer should begin with the one that was logged in first. Previously submitted petitions that have been resubmitted to EPA with more complete information should be reviewed before first-time submissions. Exhibit 5-1 is a checklist that should be used to determine if all required items are included in the petition. In general, a petition should be considered complete if a plausible and up-to-date response has been provided for each of the petition elements. Spaces between the sections should be used for the reviewer ' s written comments. Subsequent to the completeness review, the reviewer may do one of the following: Notify the petitioner by letter, such as the one in Appendix B-4, that the petition has been determined to be complete and will now undergo technical verification. The letter must explain that the determination of completeness does not necessarily mean that EPA will not request additional information in the future and does not guarantee designation. The Region also should notify the Headquarters OGWP that a complete petition has been received. If requested information is not included in the petition, the reviewer should send the petitioner a "Notice of Deficiencies," such as the one in Appendix B-5, indicating the additional information the petitioner should submit in order for the petition to be considered complete. Copies of the petition may be returned to the petitioner with the "Notice of Deficiencies," but the Region's official copy of the petition should be retained. If information is missing that can easily be obtained over the phone, such as contact names and addresses, the reviewer may call the petitioner for the additional information. Information completed in this way should be so noted on the petition. 5-2 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED I. Petitioner Identifying Information All items on the suggested petitioner identifying information format should be completed (see Appendix B-6), Attach a completed copy of the format to this checklist, II. Narrative A reasonable response for each of the following topics should be included. Each topic should be described in approximately one paragraph; General location of the aquifer Ground-water dependency in the area and on the particular aquifer for which designation is requested Availability of other public water supplies Reasons for interest in SSA designation Why the aquifer is vulnerable to contamination Quality of the water from the aquifer Relationship of the petitioner to the purveyor(s) of the water supply. 5-3 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (2) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED III. Sole or Principal Determination Information should be sufficient to determine whether the aquifer is the sole or principal drinking water source for the aquifer service area. A. Aquifer service area 1. Description of the aquifer service area 2. Map delineating the boundaries of the aquifer service area B. Population 1. Total population within the aquifer service area 2. Population served by the aquifer 5-4 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (3) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST III, (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED C. Current Sources of Drinking Water 1. Information similar to that requested on the "Current Drinking Water Sources" matr ix 2. A brief narrative description of each current source, with the method(s) used for calculating the percentages used in the matrix 3. Explanation of seasonal variations 4. Explanation of actual use versus potential capacity 5. Explanation of why the source currently is not used to its full capacity 5-5 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (4) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST III. (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED D. Alternative Sources of Drinking Water 1, Information similar to that requested on the first version of the "Alternative Drinking Water Sources" matrix 2, Information sii requested on t. version of the Drinking Water ,ilar to that e second "Alternative Sources" matrix 5-6 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1(5) I1I.D. (continued) Alternative Sources of Drinking Water Requested Item Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Inc. Not Inc . Inc. Not Inc. Inc. Not Inc . Inc. Not Inc . Inc. Not Inc. 3. Narrative Description 4, Why sou rce not currently in use 5. Legal or institutional constraints 6. How estimated daily supply was calculated 7. What is necessary to transfer to this source 8. Estimated cost to provide water of comparable quality 9. Determination of economic feasibili ty * ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (6) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED IV. Hydroqeoloqical Data Information should be sufficient for EPA to verify the boundaries of the areas in question and to give EPA a general understanding of the system. A. Aquifer and its location 1, Narrative description of the locale, including topography, climate, geology, ground-water use and occurrence 2. Delineation (plane view) of aquifer's boundaries on USGS 7.5- or 15-minute quad topo- graphic maps; delineation of very large aquifer areas (greater than 1,000 mi2) on 1:100,000 scale maps 3. Detailed (as necessary) descriptions and diagrams of the aquifer's hydrology and hydrogeology including; 5-8 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (7) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST IV,A (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED Delineation of the aquifer and non-aquifer units Longitudinal and trans- verse geologic cross sections depicting the aquifer Data or estimates concerning aquifer characteristics such as porosity, hydraulic conductivity,.direction of ground-water flow and well yields 4, Description of discharge or ground-water withdrawal from the aquifer, for example; Wells (drinking, irriga- tion, industrial) Springs Stream baseflow Maps showing water table contours or potentiometric surfaces, springs and surface water pathways 5-9 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (8) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST IV. (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED B. Recharge Area(s) 1. Delineation of recharge area(s) on topographic maps 2. A description of methods used to determine recharge area(s), for example: Assessment of topographic, geologic or hydrogeologic maps Review and assessment of of regional and sub- regional ground-water flow system(s) data Data obtained from field studies based on isotopic dating techniques, observa- tion well networks, tracer tests, etc. Numerical simulation, i.e., regional flow modeling 5-10 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (9) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST IV,B (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED Description and location of natural and man-induced aquifer recharge such as precipitation, snow melt, unlined surface impoundments, irrigation, injection of fluids and injection wells C. Streamflow Source Area Note: If the streamflow source area is not included in the project review area, there should be a statement as to why it has not been included. If the streamflow source area has been included in the project review area, the following information is requested; 1. Delineation of the streamflow source area on detailed topographic maps including location of losing streams, if such streamflow demonstrably contributes to the aquifer through these areas 2. Explanation of methods used in determining streamflow contributions 3. Streamflow characteristics including delineation of gaining and losing portions of streams 5-11 ------- EXHIBIT 5-1 (10) COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST IV. (continued) NOT INCLUDED INCLUDED D. Designated Area Delineation of the proposed designated area on a topo- graphic map E, Project Review Delineation of review area on Area the proposed project a topographic map 5-12 ------- The reviewer should record on the Status Log the date on which one of the above actions was taken. 5,4 Start-up of the Public Participation Process - For petitions that are complete, the reviewer also should initiate the public participation process. The purposes of this process are to: Inform interested parties of EPA's intent to consider designation of an SSA Gather additional information that may be helpful in making the designation determination Provide an opportunity for parties that support and oppose the designation to express their viewpoints, There are several activities involved in the public participation process; these activities are described in the following sections. The EPA reviewer also should be familiar with 40 CFR, Part 25, which delineates public participation policy for the SDWA program. 5.4.1 Workshops In certain cases a Region may find it helpful to hold an informal workshop prior to holding a more formal public hearing. These are cases involving large geographic areas of concern, complicated aquifer systems or particularly controversial issues. Workshops can provide an opportunity to discuss and dispense with extraneous concerns and to clarify the main issues so that the public hearing participants are more informed and the public hearing discussions more focused and objective. 5.4.2 Written Comments The deadline for written comments should be approximately two weeks following the announced public hearing date. Interested parties should be encouraged to submit their comments before the public hearing, if possible. Comments received following the deadline should not be considered unless the Region formally extends the public comment period. 5-13 ------- 5,5 Public Hearings The following steps should be taken in preparation for a public hearing: 5.5.1 Site Selection The public hearing should be held in a place conducive to objective and constructive input from those people that could be included within the designated area or project review area.- This may require several hearings in one or more counties or States. Possible sites include: Federal facilities Town hall County auditorium Public theaters High school auditoriums College lecture halls. The EPA External Affairs Office also may have suggestions. In addition, the EPA reviewer may ask the petitioner to suggest possible suitable locations, since the petitioner may be more familiar with the immediate area. The following factors should be taken into consideration when selecting the site for the public hearing: Rental Fee - Some facilities do not charge a fee for community-oriented meetings. If a fee must be paid, the reviewer should identify in advance which EPA account will be used to cover the cost. Liability Insurance - Most facilities will not allow the use of a room unless the sponsors have insurance coverage. The Federal Tort Claims Act should be cited as proof that EPA is insured against liability for injury or property damage due to negligence, wrongful act or omission of a Federal employee action, within his/her scope of employment. This statute indicates that the Federal government is self-insured and cannot provide site-specific insurance coverage. The Tort Claims Act specifies that those with a civil liability claim against the Federal Government are to submit the damage claim to the agency involved for adjudication. 5-14 ------- Distance - If there is a large geographic area of concern, more than one site may be selected for the hearing. 5.5.2 Schedulinq To ensure the greatest participation, from both government agencies and the public, it is best to split the hearing between the afternoon (2:00-4:00 pm) and the evening (7:00-9:00 pm). The hearing may extend past 9:00 pm but should not extend beyond 11:00 pm. If time is not sufficient to allow for the presentation of all substantive comments, the EPA reviewer should extend the written comment period to accommodate those who did not participate during the public hearing. In the interest of time, a second hearing should be avoided, if possible. The public hearing should be scheduled between 60 to 80 days from the end of Phase II to allow time for some technical verification prior to the hearing. It must be scheduled at least 45 days from the date of announcement. 5.6 Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing/Call for Written Comments The notification of the opportunity for public comment and scheduling of a public hearing does not have to be published in the Federal Register. One or more of the following methods must, however, be used to announce the hearing: Formal Public Hearing Notice in newspapers Press releases to area newspapers and radio stations (coordinate with the Regional Office of External Programs) Information letters to Federal, State and local officials and interest groups. Most Regional Offices maintain a public notice list; all parties on the list should be notified of the opportunity for public hearing. All notifications and press releases should contain the following information, at a minimum: Announcement of receipt of a complete petition Petitioner name 5-15 ------- Proposed SSA name and general location Public hearing date, time and place Deadline for written comments Address to which written comments should be mailed Name, address and phone number of EPA Regional contact Availability of public hearing transcripts - date and place Location of documents for public review, i . - EPA should notify the petitioner directly of the public hearing date, time and location. 5.6.1 Documents for Public Review The EPA reviewer should ensure that the petition and any other information submitted by the petitioner, as well as any other pertinent resource material, and the transcript, following the public hearing, be placed in a public library or town hall for review by the general public. The location of the material should be included in the written announcement of the public hearing. 5.6.2 Court Stenographer Arrangements should be made, through the Support Services Branch (or equivalent), to have a Court Reporter present to record the proceedings of the hearing. Sufficient funds should be allocated for this service. Costs generally include an appearance fee, a specific cost per page of transcript and a surcharge for evening work. The EPA staff should arrange to receive copies of the transcripts from the reporter service within 10 to 14 days of the hearing. 5-16 ------- 6. PHASE III - DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION ------- 6- PHASE III - DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION 6.1 Purpose The four major objectives of Phase III are: To verify that the aquifer is the sole or principal source of drinking water for the defined aquifer service area To verify or modify, as applicable, the boundaries of the various areas included in the petition To incorporate public comments into the designation decision process To make a recommendation to the Regional Administrator regarding designation of the aquifer. Phase III begins once the petition has been determined to be complete and ends when the EPA reviewer sends the Designation Package to the Regional Administrator, with a recommendation for approval or denial of the petition. 6.2 Technical Verification In this activity the reviewer should determine whether the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or principal source of drinking water for the defined aquifer service area. The reviewer should also verify that the boundaries of the following, as described in the petition, are correct and meaningful; Aquifer Aquifer service area Designated area Recharge area Project review area Streamflow source area(s) (if applicable). Exhibit 6-1 is a schematic representation of how these areas could relate to one another. The complexities of the aquifer and ground-water flow systems, the capabilities of the petitioners and the amount of petition detail will vary considerably among petitions. The following sections present factors for EPA reviewers to consider in verifying the technical data and making a designation determination. 6-1 ------- EXHIBIT 6-1 AREAS RELATED TO SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS • Aquifer - Geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation which is capable of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring, —-— Aquifer service area - Areal extent above the aquifer and including those lands where the entire population served by the aquifer live. Designated area - Surface area above the aquifer and 'its recharge area(s). (Boundaries are contiguous with those of recharge area) Streamflow source area - Upstream headwaters area of losing streams that flow into the recharge area. Project review area - Area within which Federal financially-assisted projects will be reviewed, which includes the designated area and all or a portion of the streamflow source area(s). 6-2 ------- During the review it may become apparent that additional technical information is necessary in order to complete the verification. In this case the reviewer should send a letter to the petitioner detailing the information that is necessary to complete the review. This letter should ask the petitioner to supply the information prior to the public hearing, if at all possible; in most cases EPA should hold the public hearing even if the additional data have not yet been received, since the necessary data may be provided at the hearing. The technical verification should take place in the following sequence: 6.2.1 Verification of Aquifer Boundaries The first step is to identify the aquifer that is the focus of the petition. Under the definition of an aquifer, petitioners may request designation of part of an aquifer, an entire aquifer or an aquifer system depending on the hydrology, lithology or ground-water flow systems. The EPA reviewer should first verify that the proposed aquifer boundaries, as delineated by the petitioner, are correct, using the topographic maps, hydrogeological descriptions and diagrams and geologic cross-sections included in the petition. The reviewer may need to modify the aquifer boundaries for reasons such as the following: To ensure that the aquifer boundaries are based on sound hydrogeologic data and principles. To help ensure that all hydrogeologically connected portions of the the aquifer will, in fact, be afforded adequate protection by the designation. This could arise in the case of petitions for partial aquifers. To ensure that designation of the aquifer will not create undue complexity in the implementation of the SSA program, as in the case of petitions for entire aquifer systems spanning vast areas. There may be reasons such as very low permeabilities or aberrations that suggest designation of something less than the entire aquifer system. The reviewer also should verify that the aquifer is capable of yielding "a significant amount of water to a well or spring." For purposes of the SSA petition, a "significant amount" is to be the same as "sufficient yield," that is, "capable of supplying a well with approximately 150 gallons of water per day." 6-3 ------- 6.2.2 Verification of Aquifer Service Area Boundaries The second step is to verify the boundaries of the aquifer service area, which is the area for which the petitioned aquifer should be the sole or principal source _ of drinking water. The aquifer service area includes the surface area above the aquifer, as determined in the previous step, as well as the area within which all of the people who are served by the aquifer live. In verifying the boundaries of the aquifer service area the reviewer should verify that the residences of all of the people who live within the area served by the aquifer have been included within the boundaries of the area delineated by the petitioner. People living within the area should not be excluded because they use surface water or water from another aquifer. If they were excluded, drinking water use from the proposed SSA would always be 100%. Obvious "gerrymandering" for instance, to - exclude a metropolitan area from within the aquifer service area, is not acceptable. 6.2.3 Verification of Sole or Principal Source In this third step, the reviewer should confirm that the aquifer being petitioned for designation is needed to supply 50% or more of the drinking water for the aquifer service area and that the volume of water which could be supplied, by; alternative sources is insufficient t£> replace the petitioned aquifer should it become contaminated. The reviewer should first verify the current drinking water sources and percentages of drinking water supplied by the petitioner. This information should be presented on the "Current Drinking Water Sources" matrix, Exhibit 6-2. If the petitioned aquifer supplies 50% or more of the drinking water, the reviewer should proceed to the evaluation of the alternative sources. If it does not supply at least 50%, the aquifer cannot be considered a sole or principal source. The reviewer should then evaluate each potential alternative source. The purpose of evaluating the potential sources is to ensure that: The petitioner has considered all possible potential sources The petitioner has adequately demonstrated why a potential source should not, in fact, be considered an alternative source, especially in the case of public water systems. 6-4 ------- EXHIBIT 6-2 CURRENT DRINKING WATER SOURCES FOR THE AQUIFER SERVICE AREA CT» I (J1 USE SOURCE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY (COMMUNITY AND NON-COMMUNITY) PRIVATE AND OTHER TOTAL Petitioned Aquifer 50% 50% Other Aquifers - 25% 25% Surface Water 25% — 25% Transported from the Outside — — Total 75% 25% 100% (This total must equal 100%) Note: Percentages are included as examples ------- In evaluating the alternative source data submitted by the petitioner, the EPA reviewer has room to exercise a great deal of professional judgment. This is due to the fact that the petition requirements in this area are hard to define and that, in many cases, the data may be costly and difficult to obtain. In general, the reviewer should be satisfied that the petitioner has made a reasonable attempt to evaluate the viability of each potential source in the following areas: Legal/institutional constraints Ability to provide a sufficient quantity of water Ability to provide water of a quality comparable to that of the petitioned aquifer at a cost deemed to be reasonable. The EPA reviewer should consider things such as the following, especially when evaluating the "Alternative Drinking Water Sources" matrices: Has the petitioner used all readily available sources of information to obtain the data? Do the data appear to be adequate and the methodology for making the calculations appear to be reasonable? Are the conclusions supported by data? The petitioner should supply at least one completed copy of the "Alternative Drinking Water Sources" matrix (Exhibit 6-3). In order for the petitioned aquifer to be considered a principal source, the Total Estimated Daily Supply (E) should be less than the Petitioned Aquifer Supply (A). If (E) is greater than or equal to (A), this signifies that there are reasonably available alternative drinking water sources to the petitioned aquifer which cannot, therefore, be considered a sole or principal source. 6.2.4 Verification of Designated Area The fourth step involves using the boundary information for the aquifer and its recharge area(s) to establish the area to be designated. The actual area to be designated includes the surface area above the aquifer as well as the aquifer's recharge area(s). This decision is critical since this area may subsequently be used to determine the boundaries within which a "critical aquifer protection area" may be located. Before verifying the 6-6 ------- EXHIBIT 6-3 ALTERNATIVE DRINKING WATER SOURCES (A) PETITIONED AQUIFER SUPPLY SOURCE ESTIMATED DAILY SUPPLY (B) (C) (D} (R Total ------- boundaries of the designated area, the reviewer should verify the boundaries of the recharge area, as delineated by the petitioner. Largely unconfined, water table aquifers should have essentially coincident recharge areas. A confined aquifer, on the other hand, may have a recharge area that is a considerable distance away from the aquifer service area. Once the recharge area boundaries have been confirmed, the reviewer can verify the boundaries of the proposed designated area. In some cases the actual aquifer and recharge area(s) may vary from the area the petitioner wishes to have designated. In these cases, ground-water divides, as best known or believed to exist, can be used as boundaries. Where necessary, surface water basin divides may be sufficient for delineating designated area boundaries. In these cases the reviewer should discuss the variation with the petitioner and determine the reason for the variance before making a decision on the boundary. 6.2.5 Verification of Project Review Area The fifth and last step is to determine the extent of the area within which Federal financially-assisted projects will be reviewed. The project review area should include all of the designated area, which includes the aquifer and its recharge area(s), and may be extended beyond the designated area to ensure that the ground water is protected by including the streamflow source area(s). If there is a stream or river above the aquifer and its recharge area, the petitioner should either include streamflow source area information or explain why it should not be included. If the petition contains streamflow source area information, the reviewer should verify the boundaries of the portion of the streamflow source area(s) that the petitioner has included in the desired project review area. This area will be of much greater importance in the western, arid areas of the country than in the more humid eastern zones. The evaluation of the streamflow source area(s) will be more difficult than that of the recharge area, since the identification of a losing stream usually requires a detailed analysis of both streamflow and nearby well data. These data often are lacking, and the petitioner may submit generalized data from regional studies. In general, the reviewer should not request that the petitioner submit detailed data, if it is not readily available. The determination of the size of the streamflow source area to be included in the project review area should be based on the overall areal extent of the streamflow source 6-8 ------- area in relation to the amount of contribution made to the recharge area. The primary reason for including the streamflow source area is protection of ground water. However, some streamflow source areas may be so extensive as to be impractical to include in the project review area, e.g., the Mississippi River basin upstream of an alluvial plain aquifer in Arkansas. In such cases, consideration should be given to including in the project review area only the most immediate upstream portion of the streamflow source area, where it contributes to the ground water. As with all of the other boundary determinations, the basis for making the project review area decision must be well documented, and all deviations from the petition boundaries should be discussed with the petitioner. 6.3 Public Hearing Generally, if at least one person has indicated an interest in providing substantive information, the public hearing should be held on the date scheduled. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to cancel the hearing. Reasons for cancellation include: No requests to make a statement have been received by EPA two weeks prior to the public hearing; hearing should be cancelled and EPA processing continued. The petitioner has withdrawn the petition; hearing should be cancelled and EPA processing discontinued. The technical review has uncovered major problems that require substantial research/additional data before the review can be completed; hearing should be cancelled and rescheduled at a later date when the additional data have been supplied. The cancellation notice should be issued through the same means used to announce the public hearing. If there is a question as to whether or not the hearing should be held, the RA should make the determination, The transcript of the hearing should be made available to the public at the same locations as the other documents; announcements of its availability after the hearing should be made at the same time as the notice of the opportunity for public hearing, 6-9 ------- 6,4 Written Comments The written comments received during the public comment period should be summarized along with those received during the public hearing, This summary, along with a statement of EPA's response or action in relationship to each, should comprise the "Responsiveness Summary" that will be included in the Designation Package. 6.5 Designation Recommendation Following the public participation activities, the EPA reviewer should complete the Phase III review of the petition. The public hearing and written comments may provide some information necessary to verify the technical data in the petition or, conversely, they may raise further questions that will require additional data. If additional information is necessary, the EPA reviewer should request in writing that the petitioner provide it in order to complete the technical verification. There are two major components of the designation determination itself; 6.5.1 Sole or Principal Source Determination The reviewer already should have determined whether the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or principal source of drinking water for the aquifer service area. The only criterion to be used in this determination is whether the aquifer is, in fact, needed to supply 50% or more of the drinking water for the aquifer service area and that the volume of water which could be supplied by alternative sources is insufficient to replace the petitioned aquifer should it become contaminated. 6.5.2 Boundary Determination Once the aquifer has been determined to be the sole or principal source of drinking water for the aquifer service area, the reviewer should delineate the boundaries of the designated area and project review area for inclusion in the Designation Package. These boundaries already should have been verified by the reviewer in previous steps. The reviewer may find it necessary to modify the boundaries of these areas from those presented in the petition based on the detailed review of the technical data. Any modification should be fully explained and documented and closely coordinated with the petitioner. If all of these criteria are met, the aquifer should be designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. There are only two valid reasons a petition may be denied: 6-10 ------- The aquifer is needed to supply less than 50% of the drinking water to the specified aquifer service area The alternative sources are capable of supplying a volume of drinking water which is greater than or equal to that of the petitioned aquifer The petition was not complete or the petitioner declined to supply data necessary for EPA to make the sole/principal and all boundary determinations, 6,6 Preparation of Designation Package The EPA reviewer should transmit the designation recommendation through appropriate channels to the Regional Administrator in a Designation Package, which includes a copy of the petition. If more than one Region is involved, a copy of the Designation Package should be sent simultaneously to each appropriate RA and the AA for Water for concurrence. The components of the Designation Package, Appendix C, are as follows: 6.6.1 Action Memorandum The Action Memorandum provides the Regional Administrator with an overview of the characteristics of the aquifer in question; issues surrounding its designation; options, if any, for the designation decision; the EPA reviewer's recommendation regarding designation and the reasons for this recommendation, An outline of the topics to be included in the Action Memorandum is included in Appendix C-l. The Action Memorandum does not need to be lengthy, since it will be accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation. 6.6.2 Petition A copy of the petition should accompany the Action Memorandum. In some cases the technical documentation submitted by the petitioner may be voluminous; therefore, the Designation Package should include only that documentation that is essential to making a designation decision. The rest of the material should be easily accessible to the RA in the Regional Office. 6.6.3 Support Document The purpose of the support document is to provide the Regional Administrator with sufficient hydrogeological and other technical data to make a designation decision; it 6-11 ------- essentially summarizes the technical data contained in the petition. A brief discussion of each of the following items should be included in the support document: Description of the aquifer and its location, including such things as: - Topography Climate Geology - Ground-water use and occurrence Alternative sources and determination of sole/principal source Designated and project review areas, including the recharge area and streamflow source area(s) as appropriate Tables and maps, as necessary - should not be duplicative of tables and maps that are easily accessible within the petition. 6-6.4 Federal Register Notice T^e Federal Register notice announcing designation of the aquifer or denial of the petition should be included in the Designation Package, along with the typesetting request (EPA Form 2340-15) for the RA's signature. Examples of these two documents are included in Appendices C-2 and C-3. This is the only Federal Register notice that needs to be issued during the SSA designation decision process. T^e Federal Register Notice should include: Summary - of the action taken and why Date - that determination becomes effective Addresses - where data on which findings are based are available to the public Contact - name and address of EPA person to contact for further information Supplementary information: - Background Basis for determination 6-12 ------- - Description of the aquifer system, designated area and project review area - Listing of the documents and other information used in making the determination - Project review procedures - Summary and discussion of public comments. 6.6.5 Responsiveness Summary The Responsiveness Summary should summarize all public comments (oral and written) received during the designation process along with EPA's related responses and/or actions. Appendix C-4 includes an example of a Responsiveness Summary. 6.6.6 Communications Plan The Communications Plan, an example of which is included in Appendix C-5, identifies those EPA or other offices and other parties interested in the designation decision and describes activities to notify these offices/parties of the final decision. 6.6.7 Fact Sheet The Fact Sheet, Appendix C-6, is a very brief, succinctly written document that can be used to inform the general public about the SSA and the specific designation decision. 6-13 ------- 7. PHASE IV - DESIGNATION DETERMINATION ------- 7. PHASE IV - DESIGNATION DETERMINATION The Regional Administrator should review the Designation Package and request a briefing and/or additional documentation from the EPA reviewer, as necessary. The Regional Administrator should make the designation and boundary determinations based on the same factors and criteria used by the review staff, that is: Whether the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or principal source of drinking water for the aquifer service area and Whether the boundaries of the aquifer, designated area and project review area have been adequately delineated. In those cases involving a project review area located in more than one Region, even if the aquifer itself is located within one Region, the Regional Administrator of the lead Region must obtain the concurrence of the other affected Regional Administrator(s) and the AA for Water before making a final designation decision. After making the designation determination, the Regional Administrator will sign the Federal Register notice and Typesetting Request; these should then be submitted to the Federal Register Office at EPA Headquarters. Both designations and denials should be published in the Federal Register. The Regional Administrator also will inform the Office of Ground-Water Protection, HQ, of the designation determination via a brief memorandum accompanied by the Action Memorandum, the Support Document and the petition. The EPA reviewer or other SSA designation staff should notify the petitioner directly of the determination. 7-1 ------- Meadowdale Port Gamble Alden Edmonds Kingston Esperance Wood way Richmond Beach Richmond Highlands Mount Lak« Terrace Vintand Port Madison I.R. Indianola Miller Boy North City Sheridai Bangor Naval Strategic Weapons Facility Poulsbo Suquamish Key port Bainbridge island Aquifer System North Beach Ballard Fort Lawton Magnolia MON7_AKf Tracyton Wildcat Lake Erlands Point West Seattle Bremerton GoJd Mountain Manchester Blake Island State Park Port Orchard Bremertorr Junction : 16 East Port Orchard Harper White Center t'aiNin Vashon- Maury Island Aquifer Bethel Banner Boulevard Park Legend ~ Aquifer Area Ingiesea Burien fragaria Vashon Normandy Park The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled this computer representation from data or information sources that may not have been verified by the EPA. This data is offered here as a general representation only, and is not to be re-used without verification by an independent professional qualified to verify such data or information. The EPA does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information shown, and shall not be liable for any loss or injury resulting from reliance upon the information shown. Bainbridge Island Sole Source Aquifer vvEPA Map Created 04/23/2013 ------- * ?fmHS Island ' Aquifer JeUjn9h>m Camano -55*" 1 Island mV™s Aquifer ¦mzrfF Designated Sole Source Aquifers in EPA Region 10 Idaho, Oregon, Washington (None in Alaska) J^y Whidbey Island Aquifer Marrowstone Island Aquifer ,1JJrl * - ! i i |,l1 ¦ WVr ' Bainbridge Island Aquifer i!wi«w P*UUfr ftwmrtar, ui Vwton Vashon-Maury m'i." island Aquifer Newberg Area Aquifer Cross Valley Aquifer Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Cedar Valley Aquifer Centra! Pierce County Aquifer tUfloKrto Hanfaft Wuflw Troutdale Aquifer System Lewiston Basin Aquifer TigmtJ. Portland North Florence Dunal Aquifer J'eaefeutjj Spring Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer Legend Project Review Areas Aquifer Area Source Area Ogden Map Created 04/12/2013 Kilometers — ------- 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Safe Drinking Water Act Sole Source Aquifer Program; Designation of Bainbridge Island, Washington as a Sole Source Aquifer AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ACTION: Final Determination SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System located in Kitsap County, Washington is the sole or principle source of drinking water for the citizens of Bainbridge Island and that this aquifer system, if contaminated would create a significant hazard to public health. As a result of this action, all Federal financially assisted projects constructed on Bainbridge Island will be subject to EPA review to ensure that these projects are designed and constructed so they do not create a significant hazard to public health. DATES: This determination shall be effective on [Insert publication date] ADDRESSES; All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection by the public during normal business hours at the U.S. EPA Library, Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. and at the Bainbridge Island library at 1270 Madison Avenue North, Bainbridge Island. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Eastman, EPA Region 10, 1 ------- Drinking Water Unit, by mail at the Seattle address given above, by telephone at (206) 553-6249, or by email at Eastman.susan@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e), Public Law 93-523 of December 16, 1974) states: If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if contaminated, could create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish a notice of the determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer. On August 5,2009, EPA received a petition from two citizens of Bainbridge Island requesting designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System as a Sole Source Aquifer (SSA). On April 20,2012, EPA published a notice in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper and mailed fact sheets to island residents which served to announce the public comment period. The public was permitted to submit comments and information on the petition from April 20 through June 4,2012. Public comments received by EPA were generally in ------- support of the designation, II. Basis for Determination EPA defines a sole or principle source aquifer as an aquifer or aquifer system which supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer, and for which there is no alternative source or combination of alternative drinking water sources which could physically, legally and economically supply those dependent upon the aquifer (U.S. EPA, 1987, Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision Process, Petition Review Guidance). Among the factors considered by the Regional Administrator in connection with the designation of an area under Section 1424(e) are: (1) Whether the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System is the area's sole or principal source of drinking water and (2) whether contamination of the aquifer system would create a significant hazard to public health. On the basis of technical information available to the EPA, the Regional Administrator has made the following findings in favor of designating the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System a SSA: 1. The Bainbridge Island Aquifer System currently serves more than 23,000 residents of Bainbridge Island. One hundred percent of the current population obtains their drinking water from the petitioned aquifer system either from individual wells or from one of the more than 150 water systems on the island. 2. There is no existing alternative drinking water source or combination of sources which supply drinking water to the designated area, nor is there any available cost effective future source capable of supplying the drinking water demands for the population served 3 ------- by the aquifer service area. No potential surface water bodies exist to provide a source of drinking water, piping water from the Kitsap Peninsula across Agate Pass Bridge to Bainbridge Island is cost-prohibitive and installation of a desalination plant is too costly. 3. Since groundwater contamination can be difficult or sometimes impossible to reverse and since the Bainbridge community relies on the Bainbridge Aquifer System for drinking water purposes, contamination of the aquifer system would pose a significant public health hazard. The legal and technical basis for the proposal was outlined in an EPA publication titled: "Support Document for Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System". III. Description of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System The petitioned area includes all of Bainbridge Island. The island is a mix of developed land and forests. Six principal aquifers make up the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System. On island precipitation recharges the aquifers and is the only source of recharge for lakes, ponds, and streams. The island has a total of 53 miles of seawater shoreline and the aquifer area is bounded on all sides by Puget Sound. Interior plateaus reach maximum elevations of 300 to 400 feet above mean sea level. The island can be divided into 12 drainage basins. Large volumes of unconsolidated glacial and interglacial materials from at least six advances and retreats of Pleistocene continental glaciers over the last 300,000 years has shaped the present-day landscape and underlying hydrostratigraphy of the island and are host to the aquifers on Bainbridge Island. The aquifer system is vulnerable to contamination from potential seawater intrusion, accidental spills, petroleum projects, 4 ------- small hazardous waste generators, household hazardous waste disposal, leachate from the closed island landfill, leachate from the Wyckoff Superfund site in Eagle Harbor, failing septic systems, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and improperly abandoned wells. Bainbridge Island's hydrogeologic characteristics are similar to the following Puget Sound islands whose aquifers have already been designated as SSA's by EPA: Camano, Whidbey, Marrowstone, Guemes and Vashon-Maury. Please see the Support Document for a more detailed hydrogeologic description. IV. Information Utilized in Determination The information utilized in this determination include the petition; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011, Conceptual Model and Numerical Simulation of the Groundwater-Flow system of Bainbridge Island, Washington, Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5021, 96 pages; Washington Department of Ecology, 201 la, Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites List, Bainbridge Island City Strawberry Plant Site, August 16; EPA guidance documents and the City of Bainbridge Water Resource Study (2000). For a complete list of references used by the petitioner see the Support Document. V. Project Review Publication of this determination requires that EPA review proposed projects with Federal financial assistance in order to ensure that such projects do not have the potential to contaminate the Bainbridge Island SS A so as to create a significant hazard to public health. Proposed projects that are funded entirely by state, local, or private concerns are not subject to SSA review by EPA. EPA does not review all possible Federal financially- assisted projects but tries to focus on those projects which pose the greatest risk to public 5 ------- health. Memorandums of Understanding between EPA and various Federal funding agencies help identify, coordinate and evaluate projects. VI. Summary Today's action affects the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System located on Bainbridge Island, Kitsap County, Washington. Projects with federal financial assistance proposed within the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System will be reviewed to ensure that their activities will not endanger public health through contamination of the aquifer. A public notice regarding the SSA designation request was published in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper on April 20, 2012. Seven comments were received all in general support of the designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System. AUTHORITY: Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e), Public Law 93-523 of December 16, 1974 Dated: ^ Dennis J. McLerran lY' Dennis J. McLerran Regional Administrator 6 ------- |